Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Burr · 06-03-2003, 07:46 PM

the_logos wrote the following:

Here is a quote from another thread of Raymond Feist, author of many fantasy books, and someone probaby more knowledgeable about this than any of us:

This implies that if an owner does know about the work and does not make a reasonable attempt to protect their rights (and one simple way of doing this would be by making a public statement about the use in question, or else sending a form letter to the rejected party), then they can be considered lax in the eyes of the law, which further implies that their rights can thus be given away.

Here is a quote from Robert Jordan from an interview with (jointly) Dragonmount.com and wotmania.com. It addresses his feelings about WoT-oriented fan fiction:

If I were with RJ when he was writing that, I would have disagreed with him on his world being a different matter; nevertheless, with that statement he made it clear that he doesn't care one way or another at this time. So as long as a mud is just using the world and not the characters, it can generally be assumed that the mud goes along with RJ's wishes. While I suppose it might be a grey area, I would advise people to remove even NPCs that are actual WoT characters. From RJ's quote, a mud using his characters does go against his wishes, unless he explicitely makes an exception. (On the other hand, simply mentioning characters such as current rulers as part of the setting rather than as part of the action would probably be okay, though care should be taken.)

But another important part of the quote is that RJ said he "MUST" do something about it as a matter of protecting his copyrights. While this quote doesn't say it as plainly as Feist's, I infer from it added evidence that the owner of the copyright does indeed have some limited obligation. Without further research (which I don't desire to do at this time), I don't know what this obligation would amount to exactly. But I would guess that consistent failure to deny permission when a person has done everything you have specifically requested and more in order to receive permission amounts to being "lax" in the eyes of the law.

06-03-2003, 07:46 PM	#53
Burr Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 123	the_logos wrote the following: Here is a quote from another thread of Raymond Feist, author of many fantasy books, and someone probaby more knowledgeable about this than any of us: This implies that if an owner does know about the work and does not make a reasonable attempt to protect their rights (and one simple way of doing this would be by making a public statement about the use in question, or else sending a form letter to the rejected party), then they can be considered lax in the eyes of the law, which further implies that their rights can thus be given away. Here is a quote from Robert Jordan from an interview with (jointly) Dragonmount.com and wotmania.com. It addresses his feelings about WoT-oriented fan fiction: If I were with RJ when he was writing that, I would have disagreed with him on his world being a different matter; nevertheless, with that statement he made it clear that he doesn't care one way or another at this time. So as long as a mud is just using the world and not the characters, it can generally be assumed that the mud goes along with RJ's wishes. While I suppose it might be a grey area, I would advise people to remove even NPCs that are actual WoT characters. From RJ's quote, a mud using his characters does go against his wishes, unless he explicitely makes an exception. (On the other hand, simply mentioning characters such as current rulers as part of the setting rather than as part of the action would probably be okay, though care should be taken.) But another important part of the quote is that RJ said he "MUST" do something about it as a matter of protecting his copyrights. While this quote doesn't say it as plainly as Feist's, I infer from it added evidence that the owner of the copyright does indeed have some limited obligation. Without further research (which I don't desire to do at this time), I don't know what this obligation would amount to exactly. But I would guess that consistent failure to deny permission when a person has done everything you have specifically requested and more in order to receive permission amounts to being "lax" in the eyes of the law.